the future of digital backs, 645 or 6x6

[john_y]

im looking to invest in a medium format system to shoot film. I would

like to select a format best suited for digital down the road. Does

any particular format has an advantage. I know the hasselblad h1 645

was made with digital in mind, so is 645 where digital is heading?

 

thanks

[ellis_vener_photography]

Is your question; "how large will they make digital sensors , measured by H x W of

sensor?" I think that is a pretty good bet. iI was talking to a tech rep for Imacon today

and asked that question. The problem appears to be the manufacturing cost for

larger and larger sensors. The multi-shot capable version of the 22Mp Imacon H25

back set up runs approx $29,000.00.

How good is it? A friend of mind who is an extremely high end, internationally known

commercial & editorial portrait photographer just did some tests and he said it is

"almost but not as good" as his standard film format . His standard film format is 8" x

10".

 

On the other hand the universal camera mount for all of the high end digital backs

from Imacon, Sinar, Leaf, Jenoptik, & Phase One is for the Hasselblad "V" cameras like

the 503 & 555.

[paul utkin]

The biggest sensor known so far is the sensor for 645 format so it makes quite little sence to invest into 67 format if the only back you have has 645 format sensor.

There is no guarantee that in the future sensors will be made for other formats. Go figure.

 

So long so far there is only 3 fully automated MF models best suited for digital - Mamiya 645AFD, Contax 645 and Hassel H1. All of them are in 645 format.

 

I think Contax is the best from this list by price/features ratio.

I also know some people who weren`t happy with Comtax and got H1 instead. Go figure. :)

[dale_dickerson2]

I whould say the camera to check out is the Rolleiflex 6008 AF. It has 6x6 film backs, 645 backs that rotate so the camera does not need to be moved for v or h shooting. It uses Zeiss and Schneider optics. All major film back makers support this system. It is not the cheapest, but it is 1st class all the way.

[dale_dickerson2]

The film back makers should have been digital back makers. :-)

[paul utkin]

$29000 for 22mp Imacon is true.

As well as $6000 for used 16mp Kodak DCS on Ebay is true also.

 

'manufacturing cost for larger and larger sensors' is the constant song of any reps of any company. Every new product is accompanied with this song. They were selling plasma screens for $16000 with this song - ah, it`s so expensive and complicated, ah-ah.

Now song is over and same plasma screens are in Costco for $3000.

As soon as they will drop down to $1000 - I`ll get one.

 

From what I know manufacturer can get 3-5 645 sensors from single silicon plate. What is the price of this plate? Go figure.

[fotografz]

MF digital backs have gone from 6 meg. 35mm sized, to 16 meg. 4X4 sized, to now to 22

meg. 645 sized in a matter of a few years. As the 35mm DSLRs continue to increase

performance, I believe the MF Digital back will be forced to also increase performance,

even going to 6X6 in the not to distant future. There will be a huge built-in market for

such a back, once the price drops below $15,000. Just an opinion based on what's

happened to date.

[._._z]

<i> A friend of mind who is an extremely high end, internationally known commercial &

editorial portrait photographer just did some tests and he said it is "almost but not as

good" as his standard film format . His standard film format is 8" x 10" </i><p>

 

Which is incredibly impressive, and rather damning for the future of large format, the vast

majority of which is 4x5 (with rollfilm backs coming in second). If 645 digital backs are

simply better than 4x5 film, then the current LF market is simply going to implode when

affordable backs become available. <p>

 

Considering the relatively tiny size of the LF market, LFers won't be driving prices down,

but competition in MF will. Three years ago the top-of-the-line consumer digicam was 3MP

and $1,000. Now there are 8MP digicams and 6MP DSLRs for that price. Given the growth of

the digital photography market, and the increasing speed of technological advancement,

how long before a $2,000 22MP digiback -- five years? Three?

[brambor]

So, where is it going to end? 20000MP backs? If yes then there is a huge market in 60x60feet photographic papers so that we can enlarge our kids and paste the photograph on a local football field.

[lkv]

Choose the format you want for film : square or rectangle ?

All digital backs today will go on both formats of cameras. Now, maybe new digital backs

will come out that will only fit 6x6 (and not 645), but that's unknown future...

Personnally, I would go with 6x6, but it is a personnal preference !

 

Lenny

www.afimage.com

[jason neymeyer]

A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a Leaf (Creo) rep. I asked him about the future of MF backs and asked him if there were any plans to make a 6x6 digital back for us "V" system users. He told me that Leaf had no plans at this time to go in that direction, and that 6x4.5 was what their company was focusing on.

 

Hopefully one of the other manufacturers will see that many of us chose the square format for a reason. I was looking at purchasing a Leaf Valeo 6 universal back for my 503CW, but opted againist it because I don't want to have to remove the back and rotate it in order to switch from horizontal to vertical format. Oh yes, I could have purchased that back, but to make it user friendly I would have also had to buy a Winder CW and a 90 degree prism for another thousand dollars.

[oskar_ojala]

If we look at the next two years then 645. If we look at the next six years or more, nobody knows. The advance of technology is so rapid in this field right now that it's impossible to predict very far.

[kelly_flanigan1]

OT abit; older 4x5" digital backs; Older digital backs for 4x5 have a scan bar; that moves across the "film plane"; during the exposure; via a worm drive. This is like the scan bar on a flatbed; which is moved during the scan. My old Phase one 4x5 back fits a 4x5 grafloc back; or any spring back that can spring 1 1/16 inch. The rig is tethered via a cable to a SCSI port on a computer; laptop; etc. The scan takes minutes; or many minutes; depending on the settings; amount of light; "asa" selected; either 800 or 400. An infrared cutoff filter is required over the taking lens. Without it; the back is very sensitive to IR; and exposures have radically less saturation; have decent false "IR" pinkish/salmon color; but back is darn fast then. Without the IR filter; ones lens usually needs a touch of refocusing; since the sensor is mostly grabbing IR. The filter cuts/reflects the IR; and causes the back to yield about true colors. There is no "sensor size" but a "exposed Frame" spec of 7x10cm; about 2.76x4 inches. The highest resolution is 5000 x 7200 pixels; for a 103meg file. Normally backs are used in studio conditions; but can be used mobile with a laptop or portable PC. These 4x5 backs were made in three resoltions; mine is the mid grade one.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The first digital back I saw in use on a large format camera was in 1996; at Blair Graphics in Santa Monica; CA. It was used to capture color images of artwwork; old movie posters; maps. This was 8 years ago. I think the back was about 40 to 60K in price.

[keith_laban]

What Marc and AZ said.

[._._z]

<i> If we look at the next two years then 645. If we look at the next six years or more,

nobody knows. </i><p>

 

When Hasselblad, Contax, Bronica and Mamiya devote their MF resources to 645, it's a

good indication as to where major players see the market over the next decade, I think.

Rollei is going its own way, as usual, and Fuji is retrenching.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I> Hopefully one of the other manufacturers will see that many of us chose the

square format for a reason. I was looking at purchasing a Leaf Valeo 6 universal back

for my 503CW, but opted againist it because I don't want to have to remove the back

and rotate it in order to switch from horizontal to vertical format. </I><P>Jason,

keep your eye out for a kodak DCS Pro Back. This is a 16MP (4,000 x 4,000 pixel)

back from Kodak, still supported now (and into the future) by Kodak. they seem to be

selling i nthe $5,000 to $7,000 range and you don't all of the add on accessories

thatyou need with the Leaf Valeo backs. The apparent reason Kodak stopped

marketing their own "medium format" digital backs was that they realized that they

were competing with their own customers like Imacon, Sinar, etc. for that market.

[joe_paulo1]

im sure that there wont be but i will ask any way, is there a full size sample image

anywhere on the web from the 22Mp Imacon H25 back. i am finding it almost

impossible to belive that this could be anywhere near 5x4 let alone 10x8. alot of what

i see written is saying that now is the end for film cameras, i work at a london studios

where we do some of the highest end work in the world and i have seen one

photographer shoot entirly digital in all the time i have worked there.

[john_banister1]

I bet you could get Imacon to send you such an image on a CD.

 

I don't think that the improvements that make for the higher pixel

counts on the small sensors in consumer cameras will bring down

the price for making even larger sensors for digital backs.

 

I've heard that improvements in integration require Intel to build new

chip manufacturing facilities every two or three years. It's too

bad someone doesn't buy some of that three year old technology and

use it to make physically larger, less tightly integrated sensors,

but I don't know that it'd be possible to convince anyone with that

kind of money that they could make more by building & selling a

large volume of huge, cheap, old fashioned chips. If someone made

a 60mm x 60 mm chip with the sensors for a 1998 Sony Mavica over and

over again except that 73 of them, sprinkled at random, didn't work

and sold it for $800 to go into a $1500 full frame 6x6 digital back,

would you buy it?

[photo_color]

Quote from a message from Ellis above: "A friend of mind who is an extremely high end, internationally known commercial & editorial portrait photographer just did some tests and he said it is "almost but not as good" as his standard film format . His standard film format is 8" x 10".."

 

I wonder what the referenced photographer's standards are, and I wonder what the true mathematics of digital vs analog are. If a high quality 22mp back can make images 'almost' as good as 8x10, then what does that say about scanning 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 film? What happened to all those pixels from scanning film? Just how much does grain in film degrade the resulting digital output compared to digital capture? If someone wants to make an exhibition quality 20"x24" or larger print, I guess they just need a 22mp medium format back then? Or is digital better up to a certain print size, and then magically at a larger size film is better? I know of tests documented on the Luminous Lanscape site that say the top of the line Canon 35mm digital camera (at around 11mp?) is 'better than 6x7' at least to print sizes up to 19" on the long size. So what does that mean - that 6x7 film becomes better at larger print sizes? How? I'm not used to something that's inferior at small sizes but better at larger sizes (well, there may be a pun there, but I'll leave that to the ladies in the audience). Maybe the 8x10 and 4x5 photographers out there might as well sell their equipment and get the Fuji 680 (which has movements) and get a digital back. The savings in film will pay for the cost of the digital back in time, and it would be much more convenient that lugging LF equipment into the field, and even futzing with film holders in the studio.

** I would really like to see a scientific comparison between large format (say 4x5) and the 22mp backs, producing prints of 20"x24", and even larger. And I would like to see a detailed explanation of what the mathematics are that explain how a 22mp back can produce images that rival 8x10 film, at various print sizes. I did see something written by Jack Dykinga, I believe (I forgot what magazine or book - maybe View Camera magazine), and it indicated that 4x5 film would be superior to a 22mp back (in so many words) -- if I'm wrong, someone please correct me!

[paul utkin]

Ok,

 

Speaking about high quality prepress it gets a bit more complicated.

 

To summarize everything - for production printing machine you`ll need to have 300dpi non-interpolated image in machine�s CMYK.

 

So let�s assume that digital back gives us CMYK right away so all problem with color transformations and conversions are gone (what is`nt exactly true but nevertheless). So we get 22mp back - it gives something about of 5000x4000 pixels. It gives us 16x13 print without interpolation. Looks like not much, yeah?

But let`s say that due to clearness and grainless nature of this image this file may be interpolated at least twice as large without significant loss in quality (it`s a questionable technique but it works quite well with smart interpolators like genuine fractals or pxlSmartScale plugins).

So at the end we get 32x26 print.

 

5x4 scanned on Tango with 1500dpi gives no grain on image. It will give 7500x6000 image, 25x20 print. If you scan it on 3000dpi it will be 50x40.

 

I work for prepress company and I saw such prints and I have to say - they look incretible. Most of our catalog work still comes in 5x4 cromes but quality wise I have to say - 22mp Leaf gives great quality, very close to 5x4 Tango scan.

 

But here is comes to other thing - we can scan up to 6000dpi and remove grain in post-process. This is an extreme and it is a quite long process but this way we can get 100x80 print out from 5x4 chrome. Can one get good looking 100x80 print from 22mp back?

I`m not sure about that.

But how often would one need something like that?

 

Speaking about 8x10 format - same math. It all depends of how deep do you want to scan. But I think that very few people ever scanned 8x10 chrome at 6000dpi. :)

[paul utkin]

And as a photographer I see no reason to compare 5x4 system to 645 format system even with 22mp back at all.

 

5x4 format is not a snapshot taking tool, you just cannot do the same work preserving same functionality with any 645 format camera so I just don`t see how it may be possibly 'replaced'.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Paul; the 4x5 speed/crown graphic was once the standard for newsphotographers; and larger cameras were used as a staple for commercial photography; . Kodachrome in sheet form was made once in 11x14 inch sheet form. With a film pack back; one could shoot many shots quickly. The bigger Newspapers had enlargers that could print a wet negative; to get the photo to the presses quicker. At one time; a 4x5 speed graphic was the standard crime scene camera; equiped with a mess of preloaded holders; flashunits (bulbs!) etc. With a giant bulb; the lens was way stopped down; focus DOF was good. A speed graphic can be hand held at a low shutter speed; say of about 1/30sec; and still be sharp enough for newspaper work. The sheer mass of the camera allows low speeds. For low light work; the Kalart rangefinder can have a focus spot ; which projects two beams FROM ones rangefinder ; which are made to converge on the object one wants to focus on. This works with no available light; the focus spot runs off ones batteries for the bulb flash.<BR><BR>ONe thing that is not mentioned on this thread is DOF and tonality. Many times a larger format is used so that one can isolate items from a background. A digital or film camera of 4x5; 645 roll; Full 24x36mm; and cropped 1.6X 35mm all have different sensor sizes. A "normal" lens for each will have different DOF; when the same aperture is used. Many times folks here "focus" on resolution; pixels; etc; and not whether one wants DOF or not. Larger formats allow isolation. The masses of consumers buying P&S digitals love the "all in focus" look; many times the backgrounds are way to cluttered for a commercial look.

[paul utkin]

That was exactly my point.